Aaron Jones of the Green Bay Packers was mentioned in a controversial proposed trade with the Pittsburgh Steelers before the Week 6 bye.

By | October 12, 2023

After a discouraging loss to the Las Vegas Raiders on Monday Night Football, the Green Bay Packers are 2-3 going into their bye week.
With quarterback Jordan Love tossing three interceptions in the defeat, the Green Bay offense managed just 13 points.

The offense’s appearance has gotten worse over the past four weeks.
The team will undoubtedly consider a number of strategies to jumpstart the offense into becoming what they had hoped it would be during the bye week.

This idea has inspired numerous writers to suggest various trades that could provide some additional assistance.
Aaron Jones, a running back who has missed three of the last four games due to a hamstring injury, is one of them.

A Green Bay Packers trade proposal would send James Daniels and Najee Harris to the Pittsburgh Steelers in exchange for Aaron Jones.

Austin Krueger, a writer for Lombardi Avenue, recently suggested that the Packers might look to part ways with Jones, who is most likely not going to play for the team again next season because the organization won’t pay him.

Krueger suggests the Pittsburgh Steelers as a potential trading partner, with the Steelers sending Jones and a draft pick to Green Bay in exchange for third-year running back Najee Harris and offensive James Daniels.

The following is how Krueger justifies the deal:.

“Large expectations were placed on the Steelers going into the season, and much like Green Bay, the offense has largely fallen short of those expectations.
The team has mixed in more Jaylen Warren in 2023 as running back Najee Harris has been attempting to return to his rookie level of play for the better part of two years.

As the deadline approaches, Harris might also be traded.
A new environment and system might be advantageous for the rookie sensation and former Alabama star.

Fans are clamoring for the firing of offensive coordinator Matt Canada, so the team might consider bringing in a dynamic weapon like Jones.

Since they are currently 3-2 and in first place in the AFC North, adding Jones could keep them there.
“.

This logic makes sense in theory, particularly for the Packers.
In spite of the fact that Jones’ departure would be devastating in 2023, it is unlikely that he will remain with the team past this season.
The addition of Harris, who has over 1,000 rushing yards in each of the previous two seasons, could contribute to some long-term stability at the position.

What Went Wrong When the Green Bay Packers Traded Aaron Jones for Najee Harris.

Harris is experiencing a down year this year, as Krueger points out. In five games, he has 63 carries for 247 yards without a touchdown. This puts him significantly behind schedule to match the output he displayed in his first two NFL seasons:.

307 carries for 1,200 yards and 7 touchdowns in 2021.

1034 yards and 7 touchdowns on 272 carries in 2022.

While he is still young and it could be a bad year, the reality is that running backs in the NFL don’t have very long careers.
Fans of the Packers may recall how Eddie Lacy produced less and less after rushing for over 1,000 yards in each of his first two seasons.

It is also concerning to part with Jones and a draft pick because James Daniels is also included.
PFF gives Daniels a grade of 62 points for run blocking and 38 points for pass blocking.

In other words, Daniels won’t help the Packers’ offensive line.
It makes sense to address the line problem, but Daniels is not the Packers’ problem-solver.

The concept is reasonable.
Even though trading Jones would be painful, it would be a no-brainer to get a young running back and offensive lineman in exchange for a player who won’t be on the team next season. The issue is that it takes two teams to complete a trade.

The Steelers would have to give up two players for a running back who is [near] 30 years old and who can’t get his hamstring right, in addition to all the disadvantages previously mentioned regarding Harris and Daniels.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *